"The Place of Tasawwuf in Traditional Islam" by Nuh Ha Mim Keller

i haven't read a lot by Sh. Nuh Keller, but i've always heard good things and have yet to be disappointed. loved this paper, figure it'd be worth spreading.

"The Place of Tasawwuf in Traditional Islam" by Nuh Ha Mim Keller

i highly suggest reading the whole paper because many of the highlights below are explaining hadith which i did NOT quote

highlights:

[The hadith] discloses the central reality of Tasawwuf, which is precisely change, while describing the path to this change, in conformity with a traditional definition used by masters in the Middle East, who define a Sufi as Faqihun ‘amila bi ‘ilmihi fa awrathahu Llahu ‘ilma ma lam ya‘lam,‘A man of religious learning who applied what he knew, so Allah bequeathed him knowledge of what he did not know.’

The use of din in the last words of it, Atakum yu‘allimukum dinakum, "came to you to teach you your religion" entails that the religion of Islam is composed of the three fundamentals mentioned in the hadith: Islam, or external compliance with what Allah asks of us; Iman, or the belief in the unseen that the prophets have informed us of; and Ihsan, or to worship Allah as though one sees Him.

"worship" is only known through the external prescriptions of Islam, while the validity of this worship in turn presupposes Iman or faith in Allah and the Islamic revelation, without which worship would be but empty motions; while the words, "as if you see Him," show that Ihsan implies a human change, for it entails the experience of what, for most of us, is not experienced. So to understand Tasawwuf, we must look at the nature of this change in relation to both Islam and Iman

the sunna which Muslims have been commanded to follow is not just the words and actions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), but also his states, states of the heart such as taqwa ‘godfearingness,’ ikhlas ‘sincerity,’ tawakkul ‘reliance on Allah,’ rahma ‘mercy,’ tawadu‘ ‘humility,’ and so on.

a Muslim must not only do certain things and say certain things, but also must be something, must attain certain states of the heart and eliminate others.

being motivated by what others think is no longer good enough, and that we must change our motives entirely, and henceforth be motivated by nothing but desire for Allah Himself

the choice of the word ittiba‘ in the second verse, which is more general, implies both keeping the company of and following the example of a teacher. This is why in the history of Tasawwuf, we find that though there were many methods and schools of thought, these two things never changed: keeping the company of a teacher, and following his example—in exactly the same way that the Sahaba were uplifted and purified by keeping the company of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and following his example.

The food of this ruh [soul] is dhikr or the ‘remembrance of Allah.’

taklif or ‘moral responsibility’ in this life is not only concerned with outward actions, but with what we believe, our ‘Aqida—and the strength with which we believe it. If belief in God and other eternal truths were effortless in this world, there would be no point in Allah making us responsible for it, it would be automatic, involuntary, like our belief, say, that London is in England. There would no point in making someone responsible for something impossible not to believe.

But the responsibility Allah has place upon us is belief in the Unseen, as a test for us in this world to choose between kufr and Iman, to distinguish believer from unbeliever, and some believers above others.

This why strengthening Iman through dhikr is of such methodological importance for Tasawwuf: we have not only been commanded as Muslims to believe in certain things, but have been commanded to have absolute certainty in them.

their authors’ criticisms were not directed at Tasawwuf as such, but rather at specific groups of their times, and they should be understood for what they are.

And this is the brightest hope that Islam can offer a modern world darkened by materialism and nihilism: Islam as it truly is; the hope of eternal salvation through a religion of brotherhood and social and economic justice outwardly, and the direct experience of divine love and illumination inwardly.

"Muslims Mark Solidarity With Jews"

Event Held Days After Iranian Meeting That Denied Genocide
By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 21, 2006; Page B05

"Local Muslim leaders lit candles yesterday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to commemorate Jewish suffering under the Nazis, in a ceremony held just days after Iran had a conference denying the genocide."

Link

Highlights:

The Muslim speakers at yesterday's ceremony did not mention that event but called for recognition of the suffering Jews experienced in the Holocaust and condemned religious hatred. Asked afterward why they did not single out Iran, the Muslim leaders said the problem was broader than the recent conference.

"The issue here is: There might be somebody from X and Y country, a Muslim, saying the same thing," Magid said. If anyone wants to make Holocaust denial an Islamic cause, he said, "we want to say to them: You cannot use our name."

The idea for the ceremony originated with Magid, whose Sterling mosque has been active in interfaith efforts. After hearing radio reports about the Iranian meeting, "I said to myself, 'We have to, as Muslim leaders . . . show solidarity with our fellow Jewish Americans,' " Magid recalled after the speeches.

"It's important that the world knows there are Muslims who don't believe in this [Holocaust denial]," Ahmed said after the ceremony.

"The Israel Lobby" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

excessively long article and old news at this point, but i *finally* sat down to read it and watch the debate. my interest in the piece isn't necessarily with its final claim (that the Israel Lobby had a strong influence on the government to go to war in Iraq), but moreso with the beginning where the authors explain, piece by piece, why a US alliance with israel is against America's interests. the highlights below don't really reflect said interest, mainly because it's a step-wise argumentation which is difficult highlight without losing strength. the highlights, therefore, are just quotes that make me go "blah."

the claim of the Israel Lobby's enormous impact on US politics has been the source of controversy for the article and the London Review of Book recently held a debate in which opponents and proponents of the idea could voice their opinions.

The original piece can be found HERE
The video (and transcript) of the debate is HERE.

Blahighlights:

This was well understood by Israel’s early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:

"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?"

During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or under. The response to the second intifada has been even more violent, leading Ha’aretz to declare that ‘the IDF . . . is turning into a killing machine whose efficiency is awe-inspiring, yet shocking.’ The IDF fired one million bullets in the first days of the uprising. Since then, for every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority of whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli children killed is even higher (5.7:1). It is also worth bearing in mind that the Zionists relied on terrorist bombs to drive the British from Palestine, and that Yitzhak Shamir, once a terrorist and later prime minister, declared that ‘neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.’

"The Top Ten Stories You Missed in 2006" from ForeignPolicy.com

You saw the stories that dominated the headlines in 2006: the war in Iraq, North Korea’s nuclear tests, and the U.S. midterm elections. But what about the news that remained under the radar? From the Bush administration’s post-Katrina power grab to a growing arms race in Latin America to the new hackable passports, FP delivers the Top Ten Stories You Missed in 2006.

cool article. check it out: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3652

no highlights for this, kids (c'mon, it's like... already highlighting the whole year!).

oh and if you're all "pshaw, i already knew all those stories," then please, shut up. no one cares about you.

that is all.
f

Islam Post-9/11: Ask Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

awesome article/interview. particularly for people who are struggling to understand the difference between muslims and islam, terrorism and jihad.

Islam Post-9/11: Ask Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

of course, highlights:

Frank Gardner:
But who's innocent? Because al-Qaeda would say - and I'm not in any way trying to justify their actions - but al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and those around him, would say that they have a God-given right to defend Muslims - that all their actions are merely in defence of they faith - that's what they would say. Now to most people, those who died on 9/ll were completely innocent people - to al-Qaeda they are a part of a guilty party - that's their view. How would you answer that?

Hamza Yusuf:
Well I would say first that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said in a very clear Hadith which is considered multiply transmitted - which means that it's at the same level of the Koran - it's prohibited to kill women and children in warfare. So I'm sorry the taking of lives of women and children is prohibited and that's been accepted practise by Muslims. Muslims are chivalrous. All of what's going on now is resentment - it's the slave morality that Nietzche described the modern age as being engrossed in - it's the morality of people that have lost the sense of human dignity.

Frank Gardner:
We have an e-mail from Aslan Ashraf in Oslo, Norway who says: Wouldn't the world be a more peaceful place if religion was practised separately from politics.

Hamza Yusuf:
Well look at the 20th century - the bloodiest century in the entire human history is a secular century. I'm sorry, Hitler was secular - World War I and World War II, these are secular wars. All the wars that have been fought in our lifetime have been secular wars. There have been religious problems that exacerbate but generally the problem has been human beings. The problem is not religion, religion becomes an excuse. And it's a wonderful excuse because obviously if God says it's ok it feels a lot better doing it so there is that danger.

Frank Gardner:
Yes but the imagery is very graphic. In one hand he's holding a Kalashnikov and in the other he's holding the Koran. Can you blame westerners who haven't been to the Middle East associating Islam with terrorism?


Hamza Yusuf:
Well first of all not that long ago most of the Palestinian resistance was communistic. People forget that in the '60s and 70' it was all communistic rhetoric. So Islam has been replaced for that. It's ideological and when religion becomes ideology it's dangerous. But conflating the two, I think is just a problem in people's minds. I'm not saying it's not fair for me in my reasonably comfortable life in the West to judge people in the West Bank - I can't do that. I would rather that we explain these things with our social sciences than with religion - that's my personal opinion. I would much rather see suicide bombing understood within the context of despair and the psychology of despair and of trauma because I think a lot of these people are suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome or continued traumatic stress syndrome.

Have Dwight Schrute Call You!

remember the Samuel L. Jackson thing for Snakes On A Plane? The Office has something similar now, except Dwight never tells you to get the DVD. he calls because he hearts you.

http://www.theofficedvd.com/dwight/

enjoy. i know my friends did :)
f

What Level Is Your Prayer?

Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullâh). He writes:

Mankind, with regard to the performance of their prayers, are on five levels:

- The First: This is the level of one who is negligent and wrongs his soul. He is the one who falls short in performing wudû' properly, performing the prayer on time and within its specified limits, and in fulfilling its essential pillars.

- The Second: This is the level of one who guards his habit of offering his prayers on time and within their specified limits, who fulfils their essential pillars and performs his wudû' with care. However, his striving (in achieving the above) is wasted due to disturbances in his thoughts during prayer that distract him and turn his attention to other preoccupations and concerns.

- The Third: This is the level of one who guards his prayers within the specified limits, fulfils their essential pillars and strives within himself to repel the disturbances in his thoughts and extraneous concerns. He is busy struggling against his enemy (Satan) so that Satan does not steal from the prayer. Because of this, he is engaged in (both) prayer and struggle (jihad).

- The Fourth: This is the level of one who carries out the prayer, completing and perfecting its due rights and essential pillars, who performs it within its specified limits and with his heart fully engrossed in safeguarding its rights and specified limits, so that nothing of his prayer is wasted. His whole concern is directed towards its performance, its completion and its perfection – as it should be. His heart is immersed in the prayer and in servitude to his Lord, the Exalted.

- The Fifth: This is the level of one who carries out the prayer like the one mentioned above. However, on top of this, he has taken and placed his heart in front of his Lord, looking towards Him with his heart in anticipation, filled with His love and His might, as if he sees and witnesses Allah. The misgivings, thoughts and preoccupations have vanished and the veil between him and his Lord is lifted. The difference between this person and others with respect to the prayer is greater than the distance between the heavens and the Earth. This person is busy with his Lord, delighted with Him.

The people whose performance of prayer is at the first level will be punished, those at the second will be held to account, those at the third will have their sins and shortcomings expiated, those at the forth fourth will be rewarded, and those at the fifth will be close to their Lord, because they will receive the portion of the one who makes his prayer the delight and pleasure of his eye. Whoever makes his prayer the delight and pleasure of his eye will have the nearness of his Lord made the delight and pleasure of his eye in the Hereafter. He will also be made a pleasure to the eye in this world, since whoever makes Allah the pleasure of his eye in this world, every other eye will become delighted and pleased with him.

President Jimmy Carter on Hardball

title's pretty self explanatory. and apologies for the lack of updates -- finals this week. holla some duas please, if you get the chance.

From the last TRUE Christian President the USA had

"At 82, Carter has the same boyish smile, the luminous blue eyes and friendly demeanor that helped him win the presidency in 1976.

I remember when he lost to Reagan in 1980. He was too level headed and honest to win a second term.

They thought they were through with him, then. They figured he'd fade into history as another one of those one term presidents who people would only vaguely remember.

Boy were they wrong.

At 82 years of age, Carter could have retired quietly and still would have made history for everything he's accomplished since he left office.

But, he decided instead to go out with a bang.

Jimmy Carter turned out to be the most courageous man to hold presidential office in America since John F. Kennedy and hands down the man with the most integrity.

In this Hardball interview, he puts what's-his-face to shame when he tries to minimize the appalling conditions in the West Bank and Gaza by comparing it to the massacres in Rwanda. Essentially, Carter tells him to talk to the hand.

He may be mild-mannered and unassuming - but, the man not only knows how to play Hardball with ISRAEL before the world - with everything that entails - he has the courage to do it singlehandedly.

God Bless him.

Jimmy Carter will go down in history as the only American president EVER to call the israeli occupation what it is - HORRENDOUS and APARTHEID." Amen

"Why We Fight" (Movie)

i've been wanting to watch this movie for like a year... and yet none of the CoMo girls would go with me. so booo! but someone sent me the full length movie, now available online. awesome. check it out

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4924034461280278026

Is American foreign policy dominated by the idea of military supremacy? Has the military become too important in American life? Jarecki's ... all » shrewd and intelligent polemic would seem to give an affirmative answer to each of these questions

The American Documentary Grand Jury Prize was given to WHY WE FIGHT, written and directed by Eugene Jarecki. http://festival.sundance.org/2005/docs/05Awards.pdf

What are the forces that shape and propel American militarism? This award-winning film provides an inside look at the anatomy of the American war machine.

He may have been the ultimate icon of 1950s conformity and postwar complacency, but Dwight D. Eisenhower was an iconoclast, visionary, and the Cassandra of the New World Order. Upon departing his presidency, Eisenhower issued a stern, cogent warning about the burgeoning "military industrial complex," foretelling with ominous clarity the state of the world in 2004 with its incestuous entanglement of political, corporate, and Defense Department interests.

Deploying the general's farewell address as his strategic ground zero, Eugene Jarecki launches a full-frontal autopsy of how the will of a people has become an accessory to the Pentagon. Surveying the scorched landscape of a half-century's military misadventures and misguided missions, Jarecki asks how--and tells why--a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people has become the savings-and-loan of a system whose survival depends on a state of constant war.

Jarecki, whose previous film, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, took such an unblinking look at our ex-secretary of state, might have delivered his film in time for the last presidential election, but its timing is also its point: It does not matter who is in charge as long as the system remains immune from the checks and balances of a peace-seeking electorate. Brisk, intelligent, and often very, very human, Why We Fight is one of the more powerful films in this year's Festival, and certainly among the most shattering.— Diane Weyermann

http://www.whywefightmovie.com/